Chickens coming home

Can we treat the Republicans as a normal political party, a party that went off the rails during the last eight (actually sixteen) years but which can still be rescued from its more self destructive, hard right tendencies through engaging its more moderate elements. Is it possible to remake it, as Paul Krugman and other liberal commentators still seem to believe, into something on the level of the Tories or the various Christian Democratic parties in Europe; rightwing but nor reactionary? Not according to the Stiftung Leo Strauss, who explains just what the Republicans have turned into in the past three decades:

It wasn’t always like this, of course. The Republican Party as an independent actor and entity was able to keep the Movement within bounds. But after Reagan, and especially the Bush debacle in ‘92, the Movement learned to seize power on its own within and without the Republican Party. As a sign of their increased power, the Movement’s rage, paranoia, and conspiracy fever in 1993 seemed novel. By 1994 and certainly 2000. the Movement had completed its subversion of the Republican Party.

Wonder why after Obama the ferocity is turned up to 11? The answer is intrinsic to the Movement as functional social, cultural and political creature. It governed for 6 years and hung on for 2 more. Its Counter-Enlightenment, racial, authoritarian /hierarchical impulse was the official American government. With Obama’s victory its rejection is not only personal but for the first time, in 2006 and 2008, it as dominant political force (not as a minor coalition partner within the Republican Party) was rejected.

The Movement Is Not Playing For Liberal Democracy

For the Movement, as we said, politics is existential. And when survival is on the line, pluralistic compromise is for chumps. Democrats still are playing for political advantage within the confines of traditional two party politics. How to give a concrete example? When the other side’s world view is existential, then the stakes are higher than something so trite as the Constitution, etc. We saw this in part through Addington, Cheney et al. with their view on the Unitary Executive. As I wrote a while ago, during a lunch with John Ashcroft after his tenure as AG, he quite blithely said the President is entitled to ignore Congress and its laws — the only thing that matters is the plebiscite on a president because it is national. He then added if the president is re-elected that by definition means the country ratified everything he has done, even secret stuff the nation doesn’t know about.

Existential combat in ideological struggle for survival with a natural affinity for hierarchical organizations and militarized speech and thought patterns. Do you see now why to the Movement any criticism of Bush as Warlord was akin to treason? It’s not only mere warfare for any given news cycle, but deeply rooted in the non-liberal democratic, pre-Enlightenment agenda.

What the Stiftung is describing is immediately recognisable to anybody familiar with US foreign policy during the Cold War and how anti-communism was used to overrule any considerations of democracy and freedom. The normalisation of torture, election fraud, rightwing militias, political assassinations (what else would you call the murder of doctor Tiller), the mass hysteria whipped up over what Obama is going to do to the country and how this justifies anything that can stop it all of it has been used with great succes in South America and elsewhere to destroy governments and countries Washington does not like. It was only a matter of time before these techniques were re-imported into the US.

Andy Remic should just fuck off

Some of the more thin skinned science fiction writers, as well as a certain breed of fan overeager to make everybody part of Club SF, have been whinging again about negative reviews. It’s the usual guff: “there are too many negative reviews”, “it’s all so meanspirited”, “positive reviews are soo much more interesting” and so on. So far, so tedious. But somebody had to take it one step further. One Andy Remic, a published writer though you wouldn’t in a million years guess it from his blog prose, has started the socalled ” Science Fiction and Fantasy Ethics project” which, in his own words (scroll down):

I believe there is a new wave coming. A new wave of positive genre fiction, as can be seen in de Vries Shine anthology, but also a positive movement in the industry and community. I believe there’s a lot of people out there sick of the constant whining and moaning and tearing down – after all, it’s much easier to destroy than create. That’s why myself, and so many other brilliant authors, are involved with the Science Fiction and Fantasy Ethics project (the SFFE) because we want to promote a positive attitude in the industry, and make and ethical stand against the constant poison and vitriol which, I think, has been invading and escalating for a long time.

I chose the name “Ethics” not because I wanted to explore the ethical contexts of novels or films, but because I wanted to make an ethical stand against the motherfuckers who, to my mind, are systematically ruining the SFFH genres. In short, I wanted to do what I believed was intrinsically, morally, ethically and intuitively right. I want to celebrate everything that is good in SFFH, because it’s all subjective, right?? – and, hopefully, we can lead by positive example.

Shorter Andy Remic: I want to remake science fiction in my own image through the power of positive reviews. Not that science fiction needs remaking, certainly not by making criticism more upbeat and “positive”. Science fiction is far too protective already of its bad writers, fans and critics alike overlooking dodgy science and dodgier politics, cardboard characters and clockwork plots for any old bit of sensawunda.

Now it might just be observer bias, but I’ve always found it was the bad writers who moaned the most about negativity, who are obsessed with remaking science fiction into something positive, a return to some imagined golden age of sf writing. Remic at least is no exception. If the quote above is not bad enough, take a look at the Science Fiction and Fantasy Ethics Project’s blog, which should be a showcase of what Remic and his followers consid good reviews.

I wasn’t impressed. The reviews largely consist of plot summaries combined with meaningless praise as in this review. The writing itself is awful as well, as seen in the following quote. “Williams’ storytelling is stellar throughout this novel. The writing never falters. His ability to paint a picture with words is undeniable. This is a real page turner.“. Not exactly sparkling prose.

To set yourself up as the great saviour of science fiction from the “motherfuckers” who are “systematically ruining” science fiction is obnoxious enough already, but then to fail so miserable at writing readable reviews as well? That’s unforgiveable.

An open letter from the SWP

In this crisis and with the BNP victorious the left must unite says the SWP:

An open letter to the left from the Socialist Workers Party (SWP)

Labour’s vote collapsed to a historic low in last week’s elections as the right made gains. The Tories under David Cameron are now set to win the next general election.

The British National Party (BNP) secured two seats in the European parliament. Never before have fascists achieved such a success in Britain.

The result has sent a shockwave across the labour and anti-fascist movements, and the left.

The meltdown of the Labour vote and the civil war engulfing the party poses a question – where do we go from here?

The fascists pose a threat to working class organisations, black, Asian and other residents of this country – who BNP führer Nick Griffin dubs “alien” – our civil liberties and much else.

History teaches us that fascism can be fought and stopped, but only if we unite to resist it.

The SWP firmly believes that the first priority is to build even greater unity and resistance to the fascists over the coming months and years.

The BNP believes it has created the momentum for it to achieve a breakthrough. We have to break its momentum.

The success of the anti-Nazi festival in Stoke and the numbers of people who joined in anti-fascist campaigning shows the basis is there for a powerful movement against the Nazis.

The Nazis’ success will encourage those within the BNP urging a “return to the streets”.

This would mean marches targeting multiracial areas and increased racist attacks. We need to be ready to mobilise to stop that occurring.

Griffin predicted a “perfect storm” would secure the BNP’s success. The first part of that storm he identified was the impact of the recession.

The BNP’s policies of scapegoating migrants, black and Asian people will divide working people and make it easier to drive through sackings, and attacks on services and pensions.

Unity is not a luxury. It is a necessity. If we do not stand together we will pay the price for a crisis we did not cause.

The second lesson from the European elections is that we need a united fightback to save jobs and services.

If Cameron is elected he will attempt to drive through policies of austerity at the expense of the vast majority of the British people.

But the Tories’ vote fell last week and they are nervous about pushing through attacks.

Shadow chancellor George Osborne told business leaders, “After three months in power we will be the most unpopular government since the war.”

We need to prepare for battle.

But there is a third and vital issue facing the left and the wider working class. The crisis that has engulfed Westminster benefited the BNP.

The revelations of corruption, which cabinet members were involved in, were too much for many Labour voters, who could not bring themselves to vote for the party.

One answer to the problem is to say that we should swallow everything New Labour has done and back it to keep David Cameron, and the BNP, out.

Yet it would take a miracle for Gordon Brown to be elected back into Downing Street.

The danger is that by simply clinging on we would be pulled down with the wreckage of New Labour.

Mark Serwotka, the general secretary of the PCS civil service workers’ union, has asked how, come the general election, can we ask working people to cast a ballot for ministers like Pat McFadden.

McFadden is pushing through the privatisation of the post office.

Serwotka proposes that trade unions should stand candidates.

Those who campaigned against the BNP in the elections know that when they said to people, “Don’t vote Nazi” they were often then asked who people should vote for.

The fact that there is no single, united left alternative to Labour means there was no clear answer available.

The European election results demonstrate that the left of Labour vote was small, fragmented and dispersed.

The Greens did not make significant gains either. The mass of Labour voters simply did not vote. We cannot afford a repeat of that.

The SWP is all too aware of the differences and difficulties involved in constructing such an alternative.

We do not believe we have all the answers or a perfect prescription for a left wing alternative.

But we do believe we have to urgently start a debate and begin planning to come together to offer such an alternative at the next election, with the awareness that Gordon Brown might not survive his full term.

One simple step would be to convene a conference of all those committed to presenting candidates representing working class interests at the next election.

The SWP is prepared to help initiate such a gathering and to commit its forces to such a project.

We look forward to your response.

But with the examples of the Respect party and Socialist Alliance fresh in their memory, will the rest of the socialist left trust the SWP not sabotage any new regrouping again? Deservedly or not the party does have a reputation of using coalitions only for their own ends, ending them when they no longer seem to gain from them or they might lose control of it. The party needs to show that they’re serious about this open letter before anybody else will want to work with them on anything but a case by case basis.

How the Greens got Nick Griffin elected

Or, the failure of tactical voting. As one disgruntled Socialist Party member and campaigner for the No2EU coalition writes:

I don’t begrudge the Greens their success; two MEPs, a net increase of zero over the last time while the Labour Party is shedding seats the way a yak on vacation in Bali sheds fur, is respectable; but a lot of their increase in voter share was because the Greens were selling very hard this idea of “vote for the Greens, even if you disagree with them, to keep Nick Griffin out”.

So, a bunch of people on the Left did just that.

And Nick Griffin is currently picking out curtains for a Brussels flat.

[…]

So if I am on the Left but I’m not a Green — for whatever reason, and the possible reasons are myriad — and I’ve just held my nose and voted Green on the promise that it was a necessary step in order to keep out the fascists, and I’m sitting hear reading these electoral results…well, I couldn’t help but feel that maybe I’ve just been had.

Recieved opinion has it that it’s so important to keep out the fascists that leftists should hold their nose and vote for parties or candidates they wouldn’t otherwise. The most famous example perhaps being the campaign to keep David Duke from becoming governor of Louisiana. His opponent had long been accused of corruption so the anti-Duke campaign’s (unofficial) slogan was “Vote for the Crook. It’s Important”. Duke lost, but Louisiana still ended up with a crook for governor…

In the EU elections it was the Greens who, as Edmund writes, campaigned on an anti-BNP platform and which was supported by the Respect party. They failed and and if, like Andy Newman, you can blame the No2EU campaign for this as they “stole” votes from the Greens, why can’t you blame the Greens from taking votes from No2EU?

As the election results make clear, the BNP did not win that much more votes this time then they did in 2004; it’s the collapsing Labour vote which helped the BNP win their two seats. Their voting totals went slightly up while over two million less people voted in total than did in 2004. So while the anti-BNP campaign was focused on getting people already voting to vote Green, it would’ve done better to persuade more people to vote in the first place. The economic crisis, the corruption in parliament and the lack of a credible alternative on the left meant people stayed home because voting was pointless.

Tactical voting campaigns don’t work and this is the best proof of it. Election after election the radical left mounts another campaign to either persuade voters not to go for the BNP or to get them to vote for some party supposedly best placed to stop the BNP. The effect of these campaigns is marginal; in this case non-existent. What’s desperately needed is something to vote for. Voters turn away from Labour in droves while finding the two mainstream alternatives, Tories and Lib Dems just as unappealing. Few but out and out racists want to vote BNP but on the left there still isn’t a credible alternative for Labour. The Greens are decent but like the Lib Dems too centrist, while the various socialist splinters barely register on most voters’ radars. One hopeful sign is the surprisingly strong showing of the Socialist Labour Party, which barely campaigned but still managed to get some 173,000 votes.

What’s needed is a realisation that there are no magic bullet, for English socialists to stop chasing the shortcut to a replacement for Labour, be it Socialist Alliance, Respect or No2EU. The only way socialists can make headway and stop the BNP is to go for the hard slog and build the party from the ground up, to not just campaign against the BNP but to grab the moment and offer a true socialist alternative.